tokportal_list_accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, informing the agent it is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond confirming the list action, which is adequate but does not provide additional context such as pagination behavior or response structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. While it is minimal, it earns its place by being direct, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'delivered' account is, how results are ordered, or what the response looks like. The schema covers parameter descriptions but the top-level description fails to provide operational context, leaving gaps for a list endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (page, banned, country, per_page, platform) has a description in the input schema. The top-level description adds no extra meaning or interaction hints beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for a tool with full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List delivered accounts' clearly states the verb and resource, identifying it as a list operation for a specific subset of accounts. However, it does not explain what 'delivered' means in this context, and among sibling tools like tokportal_list_bundles and tokportal_list_account_bans, there is no differentiation, making it slightly vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools such as tokportal_get_account or tokportal_list_account_bans, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.